Rising Sun Foundation USA has offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who can produce a verifiable Nigerian judicial precedent upholding a criminal conviction based on a statute that had already been repealed at the time of conviction.
The foundation issued the challenge in a formal statement addressed to Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, as well as legal practitioners, academics, jurists and legal institutions in Nigeria and across the world.
According to the foundation, anyone who provides verifiable documentary evidence of a judicial precedent satisfying the conditions of the challenge will receive $10,000 (Ten Thousand United States Dollars), payable into any bank account worldwide within seven working days after verification.
Foundation Questions Legality of Nnamdi Kanu’s Conviction
The foundation said the challenge arose from the conviction of Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu by Justice James Omotosho on seven counts on November 20, 2025.
It argued that the conviction was founded on the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, which, according to the statement, had been repealed before the judgment was delivered.
Rising Sun Foundation USA maintained that this raises a constitutional issue under Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The provision states that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law in force. The foundation argued that a repealed statute does not qualify as a written law in force.
It described the constitutional requirement as absolute, insisting that a criminal conviction cannot lawfully rest on a statute that has ceased to be in force.
Foundation Cites Supreme Court Decisions
To support its position, the foundation referred to the landmark case of Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961), which it said established that criminal liability must be based on an offence recognised by written law.
It also cited Temple Nwankwoala v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2018), attributing the following statement to Justice Rhodes-Vivour:
“A trial conducted under a law that has been repealed, no matter how well conducted and decided is a nullity.”
According to the foundation, these authorities reinforce its argument that Section 36(12) does not permit a conviction based on a statute that is no longer in force.
The statement further argued that decisions involving courts correcting defective statutory citations on charge sheets do not answer the question raised by the challenge.
It distinguished such cases from situations in which the actual legal foundation of a conviction was a statute that had genuinely been repealed.
The foundation specifically mentioned Ogbomor v. State (1985) and Boniface Adonike v. State (2015), arguing that neither case supports a conviction under a repealed statute because, according to its interpretation, the convictions in those cases were entered under laws that remained in force.
Foundation Points to Omotosho’s Own Judgment
Rising Sun Foundation USA also drew attention to a passage on page 72 of Justice Omotosho’s judgment delivered on November 20, 2025.
According to the statement, the judge quoted the Supreme Court decision in State v. Egigia (2024) LPELR-62009(SC), which addresses the legal status of repealed legislation.
The passage quoted in the statement reads:
“The law is settled that a repealed law no more has legal life, thus, it cannot be cited as if it still exists. If it must be cited at all, it must be cited as a repealed law, which has no life to influence an argument. A repealed law cannot be the basis for any comparison with existing law. It cannot be quoted side by side an existing law as learned advocate did.”
The foundation described this as a direct contradiction, arguing that a judge cannot acknowledge that a repealed law has no legal life and subsequently base a criminal conviction on that same law.
It maintained that where a judge expressly acknowledges the principle established in Egigia but proceeds to convict a defendant on the basis of a repealed statute, the circumstances raise questions beyond what could be explained as a mere judicial error or inadvertence.
The foundation further argued that such a departure from the stated legal principle points to what it described as a possible underlying motive extraneous to the law.
These assertions represent the foundation’s position on the judgment and do not, by themselves, constitute a judicial determination of the legality of the conviction or the judge’s motives.
Foundation Challenges Savings-Clause Argument
The statement also addressed the possibility that a savings provision may have preserved the proceedings or liability despite the repeal of the statute.
Rising Sun Foundation USA argued that anyone relying on such a provision must demonstrate how the transitional clause lawfully provides the written-law foundation required by Section 36(12) of the Constitution for the offences and penalties imposed at the time of conviction.
It maintained that the mere existence of a general savings clause does not automatically transform a repealed penal statute into an operative written law in force.
The foundation therefore called on members of the legal profession either to produce a qualifying Nigerian judicial precedent or to demonstrate the actual statutory and constitutional basis that lawfully permitted the conviction.
$10,000 Challenge Remains Open
Restating its position, the foundation declared:
“PRODUCE THE PRECEDENT, OR DEMONSTRATE THE ACTUAL STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION THAT LAWFULLY PERMITTED THIS CONVICTION.”
It said the $10,000 offer remains open and unconditional to anyone who satisfies the stated requirements.
The foundation added that silence would not determine the appeal, but argued that failure to produce a qualifying precedent in response to the challenge would mean that no such judicial authority had been presented through the initiative.
Interested individuals and institutions have been asked to submit their evidence and arguments through the following email addresses:
The statement was signed by Dr. Maxwell Dede, Chair, Rising Sun Foundation Massachusetts, USA.
The foundation said its challenge is intended to compel a precise legal response to the question of whether a Nigerian court has upheld a criminal conviction whose actual legal foundation was a statute that had already been repealed at the time of conviction.
